NEW YORK SANCTIONS MURDER THROUGH ENACTMENT OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019

Americans will remember Andrew Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York, long after he leaves Office and longer still, once he has departed from this Earth. They will remember Andrew Cuomo, but not in a good way. They will remember him for ramming through the State Government in Albany, two policy measures, both of which are antithetical to the core values, beliefs, and traditions of Americans, and both of which are inconsistent with the core tenets of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.These two reprehensible policy measures go by the names: New York Safe Act and the Reproductive Health Act. Governor Cuomo has championed both these policies. With his political clout Cuomo forced both measures through the State Legislature, in Albany. Cuomo signed the former into law on February 15, 2013. He signed the latter into law, recently, on January 22, 2019.The descriptors employed for these two laws belie their purpose, as most laws do. Cuomo tells New York’s residents that the salient purpose and goal of the NY Safe Act is to promote and enhance public safety. But a perusal of the Act makes clear its true purpose and goal: disarming law-abiding members of the public.The NY Safe Act operates through a multitude of arcane laws that place extraordinary restrictions on firearms’ ownership and possession. A person has difficulty finding them all, as they are peppered throughout the New York State Code. Once found, their meaning is difficult to discern and fathom, even for lawyers, as the verbiage is ambiguous and vague. Whether due to unintentional poor draftsmanship or due to a deliberate attempt to obscure and confound, Cuomo and other antigun zealots do intend to frustrate the citizen, and, so, dissuade the citizen from obtaining and maintaining firearms within the jurisdiction of New York.Cuomo exclaims that he is more desirous of promoting, enhancing, and securing public safety and less intent on defeating the citizen’s exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, unalienable right. Hardly true, but, one thing is true enough. The NY Safe Act makes the public decidedly less, not more, safe, as it becomes an easy target for armed predators who demonstrate regard neither for law nor for the sanctity of human life. Thus, one is left to draw the inescapable conclusion that the NY Safe Act has, ultimately, nothing tangible to do with promoting, securing, and enhancing public safety and everything to do with undermining the ideals of individual responsibility, autonomy, and inviolability.It should come as no surprise then, that Andrew Cuomo would endorse a measure that amounts to legally sanctioned murder in the case of the State’s new “Reproductive Health Act,” for it is the individual—in this case the most innocent among us, the unborn child—whom the Reproductive Health Act targets. Murder, after all, may, in a figurative sense apply to an assault on society at large, writ large, but murder is a literal, life-ending assault on the integrity, and inviolability of the individual, as so defined with particularity in both Federal and State law.As with those who espouse the radical left-wing doctrines of Socialism and Communism, Cuomo is a ‘Collectivist.’ When Cuomo expresses concern for the health, well-being, safety, or welfare of the public, he uses the word, ‘public’ in a broad sense, consistent with the precepts of Collectivism. He refers to the body politic in its entirety; not to the individuals who comprise it.The ethical system Cuomo and other Collectivists embrace is called utilitarian consequentialism. This is an ethical system devoid of reference to or concern with a person’s intentions and motivations; only with the results of one’s actions. Motives and intentions fall out of the equation entirely. An action is deemed morally good or morally evil from the standpoint of consequences only. A morally good act is one that maximizes utility for the collective, the hive. A morally evil act or a morally neutral act is one that does not maximize utility for the collective.The notion of ‘utility maximization’ is nebulous. It means whatever the proponent of utilitarian consequentialism, says it means; nothing more. Utilitarian consequentialism an ethically bankrupt system as is ‘utility maximization, underlying it since, for the utilitarian consequentialist, good and evil are relative to times and circumstances. They aren’t, contrary to a person’s expectations. with the notion of fundamental rights and liberties, as relative concepts derived from and created by man, not by God.Not surprisingly, utilitarian consequentialists espouse no concern for the health, welfare, and well-being of the individual but only for that of an amorphous mass. Thus, Cuomo, the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, does not express concern for the life, health, well-being and welfare of the individual souls of the body politic, but only concern for the well-being and welfare of the collective, “the hive.” Understandably, Andrew Cuomo would help draft the text of, avidly support enactment of, and sign into law such morally reprehensible schemes as the Reproductive Health Act and the New York Safe Act. Both these Acts have a decisive, negative impact on the life, health, safety, welfare, and well-being of each American citizen. Cuomo and others attempt to hide the awful impact of these schemes on Americans. They do this through carefully conceived and orchestrated campaigns of deception.Not unsurprisingly, the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as with the wording of the New York Safe Act, deliberately obscures and, in fact, belies its true purpose and effect. One sees the true import and purport of the Act only when one drills down into the language of it. Like the New York Safe Act, the Reproductive Health Act betrays the sanctity and inviolability of the life. It betrays the welfare and well-being of the American citizen. The New York Safe Act has nothing to do with promoting and enhancing safety. And the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with promoting health. It is a Death Act, not a Life and Health Act.Most Americans do not share Andrew Cuomo’s beliefs and wish neither to adopt nor suffer his political, social, and bankrupt moral belief system. But he thrusts his beliefs and belief system on others anyway. Since Cuomo wields considerable power and influence in New York and shows no reluctance in utilizing that power and outsize influence, those falling within the purview of his jurisdiction—namely the State of New York—are compelled to live in a reality, a hell-world, he has created for them. Few can object as Cuomo seeks to control public discourse, thought, and action; and, with the avid assistance of the mainstream media, he has become very successful at it.The qualities of compassion, restraint, humility, and respect for the beliefs of other Americans simply don’t exist in Andrew Cuomo’s psychological makeup. Cuomo, as with so many other Collectivists that comprise the Democratic Party, both on the State and Federal level, demonstrates callous disregard for the feelings and beliefs of others. Forcing his peculiar belief system onto millions of others, he does so with the conviction and certitude of a fanatic and sociopath, seemingly convinced of the infallibility of and superiority of his beliefs, and unmindful and, indeed, disdainful for the thoughts and feelings of others.As a private citizen of the United States, Cuomo may, of course, hold to and cultivate and express any belief or belief system he wishes. That’s his right--the right of free speech--as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That harms no one. But, as Governor of New York, one would hope the Governor would be circumspect. He isn't. As a Public Official, Cuomo thrusts his belief system onto others. He now harms everyone; and what he has ordained cannot and ought not be countenanced; and, indeed, ought to be roundly and soundly condemned.Through enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo at once denied and denigrated a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that is clearly, concisely, and categorically articulated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He did this because he utterly detests the Second Amendment and he finds the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be repugnant to his own peculiar sensibilities. Cuomo operates as if the Second Amendment did not exist. Similarly, through enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, he operates as if the unborn child is a non-entity and may therefore be erased from existence.

GOVERNOR CUOMO DEMONSTRATES NO RELUCTANCE IN DENYING, TO A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS--A RIGHT CLEARLY CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, YET HE DEMONSTRATES, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, A WILLINGNESS TO READ INTO THE BILL OF RIGHTS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MURDER AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH HE VIEWS AS INHERENT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EVEN THOUGH SUCH NOTION IS NEITHER EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION NOR IMPLIED.

Let us take a look at what the Reproductive Health Act, 2019 N.Y. SB 240, Chaptered, January 22, 2019, 2019 N.Y. ALS 1; 2019 N.Y. Laws 1; 2019 N.Y. Ch. 1; 2019 N.Y. SB 240, actually says. Section 1, titled, “Legislative Intent,” sets forth:“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”As made abundantly clear, through this Section of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” Cuomo dares to raise to the level of a fundamental right, something that is nowhere explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, anywhere else, in the Constitution. Yet, those members of the New York Legislature who enacted New York’s Reproductive Health Act, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, have the audacity to raise the killing of an unborn child to the level of a fundamental Constitutional Right. And, having done so, these people dare deny to the unborn child, the sanctity and autonomy, to which that living soul, as any other soul, is rightfully entitled: the right to exist as a living being, created by the Lord.Contrary to the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, no person has a fundamental right to abortion. The Constitution of the United States does not sanction abortion, under any set of circumstances. But, with enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, an oxymoron, the State of York now sanctions murder, and has the audacity of raising murder to the level of a fundamental right.How does Cuomo and other proponents literally get away with murder? They do this by denying personhood to a living soul. And, how do they do that? They do that by declaring, in principal part, that the mother’s right to privacy, outweighs the life of the unborn child. But, where in the Constitution does this right of presumptive privacy for the mother over the life and well-being of the unborn child exist? The answer is: nowhere.Privacy is nowhere mentioned in any one of the Articles of the United States Constitution; and certainly not in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution subsequent amendment to the U.S Constitution. To be sure, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed codify the fundamental right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, only through a feat of legerdemain can one claim that a general right of privacy exists within the definitive explicit right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is precise. The concept of ‘privacy’ is abstract and vague. Certainly, no sane argument can be made that a right to deny life to an unborn child equates with a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The framers of the Constitution could not have feasibly, rationally have intended that. Obviously, they have not. Only a fevered mind would believe otherwise.Now, one may argue that a general right to privacy, apart from the fundamental, unalienable, enumerated right of each American to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures does, arguably, exist as an unenumerated right of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but, again, no one can reasonably construe the idea of the assault on the life of an unborn child as something that is to be subsumed in or as something that can rationally be subsumed in a general notion of privacy, even if only as an unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment. Further, although there have been attempts to interject privacy into the discussion of abortion, one cannot do so without dismissing out-of-hand the fact that abortion logically entails the killing of an unborn child.The New York abortion law dares raise abortion to the level of a substantive, fundamental right. It does so despite the absence of either a clear legal or moral foundation for it. And for those who assert with conviction a woman’s unalienable right to an abortion, they must contend with the necessary consequence of it: the death of the unborn child. They do not wish to contend with that fact. But, if pressed, supporters of abortion will simply assert that the unborn child isn’t a person. The unborn child is simply perceived as a nonentity. Advocates of abortion thereupon deny to the unborn child the most sacred right of all—that of life itself. The moral dubiousness of and indeed the outright absurdity of their position is, thus, laid bare.For those State Officials, who, like Cuomo, claim concern for human life—there is a curious and odd “consanguinity” in both the recent abortion Act, and in the New York Safe Act. Both acts proceed from the false assumption that what Government deems best for society, perceived in its entirety, must take precedence over the welfare of the individuals who comprise that society.Ostensible concern for public safety is the pretext for the New York Safe Act of 2013. But, as with all restrictive firearms’ measures, the NY Safe Act demonstrates a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the citizen. Thus, the proponents of restrictive gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, claim to maximize benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a cost: the concomitant loss of any benefit accruing to the individual.Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 claims to extol the virtue of health, privacy, and equal protection to society comprising a class of women who seek abortion; but, in so doing, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act demonstrate a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the most innocent beings. Thus, the proponents of abortion on demand, claim to maximize a benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a most severe cost: the concomitant loss of the most critical need of all—life itself—as it is individuals who suffer the consequence of abortion as their life is snuffed out.

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER

Under any objective appraisal, New York’s Reproductive Health Act is an abomination. It sanctions as permissible conduct, acts of unimaginable savagery that other States codify in their own laws as impermissible, reprehensible, heinous criminal conduct: namely, murder.How does New York’s Reproductive Health Act do this? The Act sanctions murder by amending New York law: by adding to and deleting various provisions of New York public health law, penal law, the criminal procedure law, and other laws related to and regarding abortion.A new section of the Public Health Law of New York, Section 2599-bb reads:"A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion, when according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health."Those who defend the Reproductive Health Act argue that the law, as written, only prohibits abortion up to the third trimester, and at no time thereafter, unless “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” A few points must be made to counter this unsound conclusion.First, by emphasizing prohibition of at will abortion after the third trimester, one loses sight of the fact that the Act does allow at will abortion during the first two trimesters, regardless of the viability of a child. Those favoring abortion point to the idea that the unborn child is not viable outside the womb before 20 weeks. Whether true or not that misses the point of the horror of abortion at all. It is simply a straw man argument in favor of abortion. If a child is healthy at any point during pregnancy, then the idea of viability inside or outside the womb should not be considered a rational factor in determining the legitimacy of abortion, whether during the first, second, or third trimester. In other words, abortion should not be countenanced at any point during pregnancy.Second, the New York Reproductive Health Act, as enacted, doesn’t limit the act of aborting a child to the services of a medical doctor. Virtually any individual who is licensed in New York, and “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” may now lawfully perform an abortion in New York. The law broadly expands those who may conduct an abortion well beyond that of a medically trained and licensed physician certified in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. That should give anyone pause.Third, when analyzing the Act, one should pay attention to how the Reproductive Health Act changes New York’s Penal Code. The Penal Code has been extensively rewritten.Every Section of the Penal Code that refers to Abortion as a crime has been either deleted or repealed. Since abortion is no longer a crime, no one can, any longer, be charged with the crime for performing an abortion. Thus, even if one chooses to read Section 2599-bb very narrowly to proscribe abortions during the third trimester, in fact abortions are now perfectly legal in New York up to the point of birth of the child.Since criminal liability for abortion no longer exists in New York, no one can be held criminally liable for performing an abortion. This means that, in effect, anyone—literally anyone—can perform an abortion, contrary to the dictates of Section 2599-bb; and abortions can be lawfully performed up to and including the point where the mother is giving birth to a viable, perfectly formed, and healthy child.If there is any doubt about this, consider that New York’s County Coroners are now absolutely prohibited under the Reproductive Health Act from investigating abortion as a crime, in New York.“Section 11. Subdivision 1 of section of 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:

• A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty;
• death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
• death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;

(d) A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;(e)A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found.”What does this Section of New York law mean? It means abortion—any abortion of a child—is perfectly legal in New York. It can be performed by anyone, and at any time.Where there is no liability for criminal conduct, there is, in effect, if not in fact, no crime. Abortion has literally been written out of the criminal code of New York.What is the bottom line here? Just this: In the absence of liability, one can reasonably conclude that:  Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, abortion in New York is now permissible at any time, for any reason, performed by anyone. And, it gets even worse. Consider the following scenario: Suppose a woman, pregnant with child, has every intention of having a baby and that woman is assaulted by a criminal and, as a result of criminal assault, loses the baby. While the attacker can can be held criminally liable for harm to the mother, the attacker cannot now, unlike in the past, be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. The attacker cannot no longer be held liable for murder, for manslaughter, for criminal negligence—for anything related to the death of the unborn child.We can thus extrapolate from the law the following, where a pregnant woman is attacked an loses a child as a result of the attack:The loss of the child, as a result of an attack on the mother, may be construed as an unintended abortion. Since abortion is no longer a crime, the loss of the child from the abortion can no longer be deemed a crime. Cuomo himself makes the point by proclaiming that the mother cannot be held responsible for the loss of the child. But that misses the critical point. The question is not whether the mother can be held criminally liable for the loss of her child. Obviously, she cannot and ought not. Rather, the issue is whether the perpetrator of the violence on the mother can be held criminally liable for the harm done to the unborn child—i.e., the death of the child—caused by the perpetrator’s attack on the mother. He cannot!Since abortion is now ruled out as a homicide in New York in every instance, the child, as such, does not in law exist. One cannot be charged for a crime perpetrated on a non-entity. It is as if the mother were not pregnant at all. It simply no longer matters under New York law. It is not, then, merely that an unborn child is perceived as not worthy of life. It is as if the unborn child doesn’t exist; that the unborn child never existed. The child is not perceived as a person, but merely as an unwanted thing to be discarded.This is the new reality, the hellish cauldron of insanity and horror that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has thrown all New York residents into and which, like the reprehensible New York Safe Act, he would unleash on the entire Country if he were but given the chance.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES BRAZENLY ATTACK SECOND AMENDMENT DURING DEBATE

While it may seem a waste of words even to discuss the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential candidates’ positions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, some elucidation is in order since we can zero in on the current strategies each of the five Democratic candidates would employ for undermining the Second Amendment were that person elected to the Office of President. So, let us consider where each of the five candidates stand on the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as laid out during the October 13, 2015 Democratic Party Debate, held at the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas.Well, none of the Democratic Party candidates serve as a supporter, much less an exemplar, of the Second Amendment. That, we know. But, if so, how can an American -- any American -- claim to represent all Americans who does not vow to uphold the “Bill of Rights” of the U.S. Constitution – all Ten of them, not Nine or Eight of them?Now, some might argue that Jim Webb, who, as the moderator, Anderson Cooper, pointed out, had, at one time, at least, received an “‘A’ rating from the NRA,” is, in fact a supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, Cooper asked Webb whether Webb would agree that arming more people is Webb’s answer to a mass shooting. Webb did not take the bait but said that there are two fundamental issues involved in this discussion and that both need to be respected. The first issue, Webb said, goes to the question “who should be kept from having guns.” Webb said that criminals, gang members, and those who are mentally incapacitated should not have access to guns. The second issue, Webb asserted, goes to the tradition in this Country. Webb pointed out that people have a right to have access to guns to protect their families from violence since they do not have bodyguards as those in high levels of Government do. Now, these assertions might suggest that Webb is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment but, if you carefully analyze what he said, Webb qualified and effectively undermined his position by arguing for more “background checks,” and he clearly asserted that mental health practitioners should share their patients’ medical information with Government.The use of background checks as well as the introduction of measures compelling mental health practitioners to divulge medical information that is subject to the doctor/patient privilege serve only to destroy the inherent right to privacy. And both measures result in secretive Government registration lists – all part of “Big Data” for the benefit of “Big Government.” So, if you think that Jim Webb is a devoted protector of Americans’ Second Amendment Right of the people to keep and bear arms and, as well, protector of Americans’ Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, you better think twice. Many viewers of the televised debate were taken in by Webb’s pronouncements, believing that he supports the Second Amendment. At one time, perhaps he did. As a Democratic candidate for President, he most certainly does not.Anderson Cooper then asked Bernie Sanders to address his position on guns. Cooper, pointed out – among other things – that Sanders had, at one time, shielded gun companies from lawsuits. Cooper suggested, without explicitly stating, that Sanders supports gun ownership. In his response Sanders corrected Cooper, beginning with Sanders' point that he had received a “D Minus” rating from the NRA -- shamelessly boasting to the American public that the NRA does not approve of Sanders’ position on “guns.”To exemplify the import of the “D-Minus” Rating, Sanders said that he had, since 1988, supported a ban on “assault weapons” – this coming from a man who also remarked that Vermont has virtually no gun control laws -- a curious addendum to Sanders' statement, indeed.Sanders also said that he has, through the years, supported instant background checks and that he ascribes to “doing away with this ‘terrible’ gun-show loophole.” He also said that we have to deal “aggressively" at the federal level, with straw man purchases. Finally, Sanders said that people who face mental health crises must get mental health counseling immediately.Anderson Cooper pressed Sanders on whether he wishes to shield gun companies from liability. Sanders replied, “of course not.” Sanders added that he does not believe that a gun shop owner who had legally sold a gun to a purchaser should be held accountable if a crime is committed with that gun. But, he added, where a gun shop owner or gun manufacturer had knowingly sold a gun to a criminal, then that gun shop owner or manufacturer should be held accountable.As with Webb, Sanders is arguing for mandatory mental health care intervention and the sharing of private medical records – even if this is only tacitly stated. Is this such a bad thing? Yes, it is!Since the distinction between non-serious mental health problems and serious mental health issues is nebulous at best, those Democrats, and Republicans, too, for that matter, who are jumping on the mental health care bandwagon, are essentially setting the stage for a gun ban impacting a tremendously large segment of the American population – a population consisting, conceivably of tens of millions of Americans. Moreover -- and it bears repeating -- the requirement that mental health care practitioners must share medical information with government officials absolutely destroys the sanctity of the doctor/patient privacy privilege and destroys, as well, the import and purport of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Anderson Cooper, obviously providing a leg up for Hillary Clinton, then asked Clinton whether she felt that “Bernie Sanders is tough enough on guns.” Hillary must have gotten a pleasant jolt out of that question, thinking to herself, “thank you Anderson Cooper.” She responded, “no, not at all!” Clinton pointed out that we lose ninety people a day to gun violence and that this has gone on for far too long. Clinton didn’t trouble herself to support the assertion with evidence. Clinton never does. Nor did Clinton bother to explain what groups of people are responsible for the gun violence. Clinton, as always, is notoriously vague. So, was Clinton referring to criminals as the source of gun violence or was she referring to law-abiding citizens? Anderson Cooper, obligingly, never bothered to ask Clinton for clarification.Clinton – now on a roll – she must have loved that Cooper brought up the issue of "guns" – said, “it is time the entire Country stood up against the NRA.” Clinton got a large round of applause for that last remark. Clinton is always at her best when posturing to her audience who are satisfied receiving choice sound bites from her – never demanding cogent, comprehensive, coherent, intelligent arguments in support of her positions -- assuming she has a firm conviction about anything, apart from her singular lust for securing the Office of the Presidency.Clinton in her remarks is essentially asserting that the NRA is something other than the millions of Americans who compose it and millions more who derive benefit from it – whose interests the NRA represents. Is Clinton suggesting that tens of millions of Americans – stand up against themselves – against their own interests? Once again, Anderson Cooper didn’t trouble himself to ask Clinton to expand upon her bald, bold pronouncements. Rather, he allowed her to bask in the limelight of her mesmerized devotees, who hang on her every empty and, often, inconsistent word. Clinton then unleashed another volley of ludicrous assertions that -- one might reasonably suspect -- she expects the public to take for profound aphorisms. She blurted out that the majority of Americans support background checks and even the majority of gun owners do. Oh, really? But, instead of quizzical gazes from the audience, she gets another round of applause.Clinton then attacks Sander’s record on guns. She said that Sanders voted against the “Brady Bill” five times and that, according to Clinton, since the passage of the “Brady Bill,” more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented. If true, one must wonder that, if the “Brady Bill” were so successful, why are the Democrats proclaiming the need for yet more restrictive gun legislation?Oh, and now that Hillary is on a roll, more nonsense gushes forth. She asks: Did you know that the gun manufacturing industry in America is the only industry immune from lawsuits? She further asserts that gun manufacturers are the only manufacturers who are not accountable. Clinton would have you believe that this nonsense is just common knowledge rather than vacuous remarks, devoid of any legal or logical substance.Sanders responded that we need to expand background checks, do away with the “gun show loophole,” deal with mental health issues, and do away with straw man purchases. This all boils down to: limit as far as possible the number of Americans who can possess firearms, and make sure that those few remaining law-abiding Americans, who can and do lawfully possess firearms, register them so all governmental bodies know who those Americans are -- which makes confiscation of firearms, then, a relatively simple task.Not to be outdone, Martin O’Malley blurted out his own righteous indignation. O’Malley referred to a lawsuit that was filed by a couple against a person who sold several thousand rounds to the individual who killed their daughter in a “mass shooting” in Aurora, Colorado. O’Malley said that the game was rigged against this couple. The case – we’d all like to have the citation to it – was thrown out of court. Worse, according to O’Malley, the couple were “slapped with $200,000.00 in court fees.” And, who was responsible for this alleged perversion of justice, according to O'Malley? The proverbial Bogeyman! The NRA of course. The NRA, according to O’Malley, gets its way in Congress and “we” – whoever “we” refers to – take a backseat. O’Malley concludes his rant with: “It’s time to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation in this Nation!” More applause.Sanders and O’Malley then get into it – as egged on by Cooper. Clinton, for her part, standing calmly between the two – nods her head knowingly, and smiles vacantly, demonstrating seeming composure, as Sanders and O’Malley exhibit a very un-presidential loss of control.Finally, Cooper deigns to give the lost black sheep of the herd, Lincoln Chafee, a couple of minutes to chime in. Chaffee remarks that he has consistently voted for “commonsense gun safety legislation,” and that he has earned an "F" Rating from the NRA -- something to be proud of, apparently. Continuing to smile at seemingly nothing, as he has done throughout the “debate,” Chafee adds that “commonsense” gun safety legislation cannot be passed because the “Gun Lobby” comes in and tells the people, “they’re coming to take away your guns.” Well, aren’t "they" though?So, there you have it: the Democratic Presidential Candidates' policy positions and strategies for undermining the Second Amendment. Oddly enough, though, as each of the Democratic Party candidates for President denigrated “guns,” during the lengthy ten minute tirade, not one of them bothered to explicitly mention the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is really what the "gun" issue is all about, which the candidates talked roundabout, climbing over each other in their mindless zeal to excoriate.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.